Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

Involvement of Palestinian Factions

Both the PLFP and DFLP have announced their participation alongside Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Shouldn't they be added to the belligerent section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.208.39 (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to second this, and also request the addition of the Popular Resistance Committees which have engaged in fighting also: see here --CommieMark (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Lede

Issue with the lede, the sentences claims the police forces "stormed" the mosque. This is highly biased and incendiary language, and is not what the source claimed. Moreover, it should be noted the REASON for the necessary raid, the mosque being the place where protesters/rioters hid after attacking police, as per several Israeli sources. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Per the guidelines at the top of the talk page, please provide a reliable source for the change you want made, and also a more specific wording suggestion. Otherwise, it is unlikely your request will be granted. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 14:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not incendiary language, it is a factually neutral description of an incendiary event. I do not think the neutrality of this wording is legitimately in dispute. A term like "raided" (while also factually accurate and readily sourced ) is as or more "incendiary". As stated above, please provide sources. I suggest removing the parenthetical about neutrality. WillowCity (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. A police raid is the correct technical term for this type of police action. No police themselves (for example) would say that they "stormed" a building. FerranValls (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Include info criticizing media coverage

Not sure if this source is reliable, but it seems to do a good job at summarizing criticisms of the media coverage of this incident. X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

In determining whether the source is reliable, a good guide is WP:Newsorg and WP:Questionable. The article itself reads more like an editorial or opinion piece, though I admit that the content is interesting. I am just concerned that the source is not one readily known as being reliable. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems Wikipedia and its “editing” mafia is now riddled with extreme Zionists ...

Article neutrality

After reading the article and looking at it's recent edit history, I see a clear bias against the Israeli side, or in support of the Palestinian side. --WindowGuy87 (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC) For example: https://i.imgur.com/MRTKIiJ.png . This is clearly from a non-neutral point of view

You must be joking. Unless you think that reporting on the events as they occur is "biased towards Palestine". 2607:FEA8:A4C3:BF00:4151:63EE:92D9:4A84 (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to edit using reliable and ideally, independent sources with due weight, etc etc. That usually fixes things after a while.Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to edit this page. Just my observation. --WindowGuy87 (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You may ask for edits to be made using an edit request.Selfstudier (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We had seen with responses of Nableezy and others, half truths (about the lynch attempts of Jews) in this very page, this articale now is a joke and filled with factual erros from the lead to the internel sections favoring the Palestinian side. It says Palestinian Civilians when even the sources does not say they had been civilians, Original Resarch and outright lies are ok as long it is favoring the Palestinain side. Not a word about the waves of lycnh attempts against Jews nor the rocket attacks before this clashes. A lie that Ben Gvir opening his office in Sheikh Jarah triggered clashes while he moved his office there AFTER daily attacks and lynch attempts against Jews. The fact that Palestinian militants had been doing agro terrosism BEFRE the event is not even covered and it looks as if it started with the clashes, a date is selected about Sheikh Jarah when since April there had been attacks by Arabs against Jews 2A00:C281:1575:CC00:DA7B:5CB4:5930:3298 (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide reliable sources to back up your claims? X-Editor (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you trying to make fun of people ? it takes like 5 minutes to google and see that Ben Gvir moved AFTER attacks against jews after a several days of clashes That was first google results,anyone who would have done a simple search would see that with what we have here it seems it was intetnional because it was easy to select that day as a start for the clashes, but I'm sure editors of this page would find some exuse why continue with the false information in this very page (like Ben Gvir causing the clashes when he moved there after weeks of clashes, he must be some kind of time traveler or something like that ?), what excuse would be use ? it's written in Hebrew ? not RS because it's Israeli sources ?. maybe how the articale cover Palesinians as "civilians" when the cited sources are not saying they are civilians example "https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/gaza-health-ministry-says-126-palestinians-have-been-killed-in-operation-guardian-of-the-walls/" does not say they had been civilians but it used as a refernce for "126 civilians and militants killed, 950 wounded". How NOT one of the phrases that mentioned dead Paelstinain children had described that at least in some of the case they had been killed during PALESTINIAN ROCKET ATTACKS which fell inside gaza > what excuse will be given to that ? because it's in hebrew or because it's rotter one of the oldest reporting sites in Israel ? or because it's ynet ? You want links to Palestinians using different attacks since April here is an entire section for that ! and here a citation , And you don't need to have a citiation for something which can be seen in the history of this talk page 2A00:C281:1577:1400:9B7B:BABE:2F74:4445 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, reliable sources are virtually unanimous in taking the Sheikh Jarrah events as a flashpoint, I could be disabused of that thought but I'd like to see the evidence. Otherwise anyone can pick any event all the way back to (some date, 1948, 1967, Oslo, etc) and say that was where it started. Anyway it is not at all clear what edit you want made to the article.Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In such case you should check little bit more what RS sources you are selecting and what they are actually saying, you had been presented by RS that Ben Gvir had arrived AFTER the clashes had started to bring police into Sheikh Jarah. The RS which are used in this very page state it started before Ben Gvir had arrived.

The request is simple - remove any case where it says Palestinian civilian when the ref does not use Palestinian civilans , change the line that Ben Gvir causing clashes to "Ben Givr had arrived after daily attacks against Jews to force police to maintain the order" (like the RS which had been presented in this very page says). Replace the phrase "Israeli settler was killed" and use what RS had described there (Three Israelis were wounded, one critically, in a suspected shooting attack at Tapuah Junction in the West Bank. Yehuda Guetta, a 19-year old yeshiva student, subsequently dies of his wounds) use what RS had said about the Palestinain who had been killed on that day and write his affilation and actions (saying he was just a "boy" and not menionting he was part of a mob while he was partipating in attempted murder just show the bias of this page).2A00:C281:180A:E900:CEB:9F43:782B:5C1E (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Ref controversy

The choice of Al Jazeera for the death count lack coherence with the neutral point of view principle.

For example precisions about death toll etc is necessary.

An example to add : https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/palestinian-group-at-least-some-gaza-child-victims-killed-by-failed-rocket-fire/

--Sandtransman (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s safe to say neither group is going to be neutral for reporting causes of death and the casualty section is iffy until we have neutral parties ruling on it. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:98 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Times of israel would clearly be far more bias than Al Jazeera.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:bb6:3663:2b00:e553:701b:a29d:f4a8 (talk • contribs)

It might be good, might not, the DCIP website can be read by anyone but ToI is saying "The veracity of the group’s reporting is not known." so who knows? Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I was checking that earlier:

• The New York Times says Two days of Israeli strikes on Gaza, which is controlled by the militant group Hamas, have killed at least 53 Palestinians, including 14 children, and wounded more than 300 people in Gaza by Wednesday afternoon, according to Palestinian health officials. [1].
• Reuters say At least 53 people have been killed in Gaza since violence escalated on Monday, according to the Palestinian territory's health ministry. [2],
• The Washington Post says Some 48 Gazans, including 14 children, according to Palestinian health officials, and six Israelis, including one teenage girl, according to Israeli emergency response officials, have been killed [3]
• AP says The death toll in Gaza rose to 48 Palestinians, including 14 children and three women, according to the Health Ministry. More than 300 people have been wounded, including 86 children and 39 women. [4]
• the Wall Street Journal says Israeli strikes and Hamas rocket fire have so far killed 56 Palestinians, including 14 children, and six Israelis, according to Palestinian and Israeli officials. [5] and
• the BBC says At least 53 Palestinians and six Israelis have been killed since Monday. That includes 14 Palestinian children caught up in the conflict. [6]

I propose we say that "As of the 12 May, 53 Palestinians had been killed, including 14 children, according to Palestinian officials.", sourced to the NYT, Reuters, and the BBC. JBchrch (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, there is no consensus that "Times of Israel would clearly be far more bias than Al Jazeera" as Selfstudier said above. I agree that the statement you proposed is well supported and should be in place, JBchrch. AlexEng^(TALK) 16:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Except I did not say that, it was an unsigned edit made by some one else.Diff And that's the second time now that you have made misleading statements about what I have said.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Al Jazeera has a known biased against Israel and is known to report things that did not happen,i but it is no surprise this page is using it as a source given the Anti Israeli bias in this page. 2A00:C281:1575:CC00:DA7B:5CB4:5930:3298 (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"far-right"

in the intrudaction is says that the flag parade was organized by far right jewish natiolists. its not true. is an annual parade citing the day Jerusalem was united during the six days war. please remove the "far right" from the intrudaction?--Haya831 (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

From the NYT source in the article: [7] The unrest was long predicted to come to a boil on Monday, when far-right Israelis were scheduled to march through the Muslim Quarter of the Old City. Is this controversial or disputed by other reliable sources? If so we could attribute it to the NYT, but in general I don't think they need attribution without good reason. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

here is a source from bbc [8]. The flag parade is never was organized by far right movemants in Israel. I live in jerusalem since 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haya831 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your living in Jerusalem isn't a source. All or almost all sources maintain the actions in Jerusalem were ultra-nationalist or far right. FerranValls (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This is simply a lie. The annual parade is not held or led by far right people. But who can argue with New york times, they never lie ... Matanya (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Far Right is simply a smear used by media groups who could themselves easily be construed as far left, and yet are the usual sources of highly contentious material posted to Wikipedia by its clique of extremely politicized administrators and privileged editors who get to go behind the many locked pages on the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Palestine seems to be winning the edit wars - probably won't win on the ground and in the skies though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.236.50 (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Causes

I disagree with this edit which adds to the infobox:

• Palestinian frustration with Palestinian President's decision to postpone the 2021 elections

Sourced to The Guardian and AFP. The infobox should only have the core causes. This rationale does not appear to be widely supported by the HQRS, and there is a lot of speculation on wider causes. The Guardian specifically gives half a dozen causes, including The Trump Administration, the Israeli elections, the restrictions in the month of Ramadan, communal violence in the streets, and Israelis nationalists waving flags in the Old City, all of which aren't mentioned.[9] It's completely arbitrary to include the Palestinian elections being delayed (and omit all the others) unless widely supported by HQRS. The infobox only needs to have the core factors which HQRS agree on, not the speculated factors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Afaics, sources that mention it, do not say it is causative but only another factor adding to Palestinian frustration. Probably one could make a lengthy list of such things.Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This goes in and comes out with regularity. Clearly it is too much to say that this is a primary cause, sources are near unanimous that Skeikh Jarrah is the flashpoint, so the debate is only whether it is a contributing factor. I also doubt that Palestinians all think exactly the same way about this issue.Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2021

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis → 2021 Israel–Palestine conflict – Articles say it escalated into a conflict, https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/israel-palestine-conflict-live-updates-a-scary-night-for-all-as-gaza-and-israel-strikes-escalate-9277851.htm/amp, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/us-sending-official-to-tamp-down-soaring-israel-palestine-conflict/2239163, https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091852 Ridax2020 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Ridax2020 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The conflict is spread throughout Gaza, Israel and east jerusalem so 2021 Gaza conflict doesn’t sound preferable if we’re going to use that name. Ridax2020 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose confusing with the ongoing Israel–Palestine conflict. Putting 2021 in front makes it seem strange, like possibly this article is about all events relating to said conflict in 2021, for example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Also your sources, for the most part, aren't HQRS. While "crisis" is probably not the best title, this proposal doesn't seem much of an improvement and at minimum isn't supported by the given evidence. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • There is an article for the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which is apart of the broader Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and an article called 2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict as there is another article called Iraqi–Kurdish conflict so your argument is flaw Ridax2020 (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      • PR's argument is not flawed. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS—those articles you mention are just as confusing already. Aza24 (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Your opinion doesn't count alone, you can't dictate till discussion ends, its what WP:RS says that counts. WP:NOR is a bigger violation than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and there are separate articles of Gaza War (2008–2009), 2014 Gaza War which just like this were prominent phases of the half a century of crisis. Either ways WP:RS calls it a conflict and that's what matters most and let's see what the consensus leads to. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

          No one was arguing that RS is less important than OSE—this thread was centered around the understandability of page titles, which is all I commented on. RS is a separate matter Aza24 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose It started out with clashes, then I moved it to violence and then someone else moved it to crisis. I would agree that, in general, this is a part of the Israel-Palestine conflict and we also have articles like Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 2021 where, in theory, material from here could end up in those other articles at some point. Although the events here are exceptional enough, I don't think it yet rises to the status of the main Israel-Palestine conflict in the sense of that having gone on for a long time, crisis is sufficiently expressive for the time being imo.Selfstudier (talk)

There is a sustained campaign of bombardment by both sides that has lasted for several days, it is not intermittent skirmishing but now a full blown armed conflict between the parties. See also my comments below, the use of the proposed title is the normal manner in which these sorts of articles are titled until they are given more formal names by sources outside wikipedia. For examples see 2021 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan conflict and the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict pages.XavierGreen (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If sources begin referring to these events in some consistent way, I would be happy to follow them. Meanwhile, what is the hurry? It's been a week.Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - This is the common way of describing conflicts such as this until a proper formal name is established the sources. For recent examples see 2021 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan conflict and the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which was a part of the greater overall Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the same manner how this conflict at issue here is part of the greater overall Isreali-Palistinian Conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  WP:OSE, and if I remember correctly (having closed one of the RMs related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict) the widely attended discussions tend to be quite weak on actual policy arguments. I wouldn't look in that direction for inspiration. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The results of the requested move discussions you referenced resulted in the current title that the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article has and the resulted in labeling the 2020 conflict there as a war. So that "direction" is a perfect example. I know, because I too was involved in both move discussions.XavierGreen (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - This is a full blown conflict, exactly like the case of 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which was a part of the greater overall Nagorno-Karabakh conflict per XavierGreen. To call this a crisis is WP:EUPHEMISM. Albertaont (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This a an all-out armed conflict, like the 2014 Gaza war Mausebru (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Noting, for the record, that per WP:ARBPIA4 non-EC editors may not participate in internal project discussions in the topic area. And per this ARCA that prohibition extends to requested moves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Usual to strike in such cases, I have done so.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - IMO “crisis” refers to the entire situation: violent police actions against protestors, evictions in East Jerusalem, Hamas attacking Israel, Israel attacking Hamas, the violent rioting in Israeli cities that some are describing as pogroms or civil war, violence in the West Bank. The scope of events extends far beyond just the armed conflict between Hamas and the Israeli government. I think it’s worth waiting to see how events develop before changing the name, and to my knowledge it is inconsistently referred by RS due to just how much has happened over the last week. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 16:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Due to fact that the crisis become an full-blown military conflict. I initially proposed the article to indefinited synsop move protected but i don't think so it can be archive. 36.65.44.100 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Per Arbpia restriction, non ec editors cannot participate in formal discussions.Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support This is clearly not just a "crisis".--Sakiv (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Far too early. The conflict is itself the longest in modern history, and this, so far, is the latest bloody blip. The conflict is perennial/continuous, lowscale warfare and lawfare, and these explosions are usually restricted to particular moments, which is what 'crisis' precisely refers to. Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Definitely not a crisis anymore. Elserbio00 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Not just a crisis anymore. And some sources even calling it a "war". EkoGraf (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this article refers to a very specific series of events; "2021 Israel–Palestine conflict" makes it sound like its an overview of the Israel–Palestine conflict during 2021. Besides, no reliable sources have been presented for such a move. Aza24 (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  https://abc7.com/amp/israel-palestine-conflict-airstrikes-vs-what-is-happening-in-jerusalem/10619354/, https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/world-leaders-call-for-restrain-and-peace-talk-as-israel-palestine-conflict-escalates-9285841.htm/amp, https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/israel-palestine-conflict-biden-speaks-to-netanyahu-says-israel-has-right-to-defend-itself/amp_videoshow/82594971.cms, https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/delta-united-and-american-suspend-flights-to-israel-because-of-israel-palestine-conflict-01620911890 Ridax2020 (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  Touché. Either way, the move implies that skirmishes or conflicts earlier in 2021 would not be under the 2021 Israel–Palestine conflict, but would be under the Israel–Palestine conflict—which really makes no sense. Aza24 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  None of these are HQRS. Given that every single top RS has covered these events from The New York Times to CNN, The Times (UK), BBC, etc., the sources you can provide are MarketWatch and local affiliates of CNBC and ABC? IMO your own evidence shows this is not the WP:COMMONNAME and might be WP:Original research. RS are inconsistent and have not settled on a name, so the point of this RM seems confusing. BBC currently seems to most consistently be using "Israel-Gaza violence".[10] The Times uses "clashes".[11] The New York Times varies between "conflict" and "crisis",[12][13] sometimes using "dispute".[14] Some lower quality sources use "war". The closer may note that any evidence provided by the supporters who provided something is from relatively low quality sources, and most supporting editors don't appear to have checked for sources at all. Sources haven't settled on a name yet; we can only do so when they do. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support changing it to the 2021 Israel—Palestine Conflict since “Crises” would be the wrong terminology to describe the current evident taking place.BigRed606 (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The IP conflict has been going on for decades, this event is not occurring out of thin air, it is the continuation of the IP conflict. I would wait for RS to give this a name. 2600:1702:3C80:B60:3079:AC50:917F:28E8 (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Like ips saying support gets striked out as ips are not allowed to vote, so this ip saying oppose should be striked out too. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support This is a full on war. From my point of view, I believe that the current events going on in the Israeli-Palestinian territories do not accurately reflect a "crisis". Xpërt3 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Clearly more than just a crisis. PaleoMatt (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support The breaking point has been crossed. AustroHungarian1867 (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose What is currently happening is a renewal of a decades long conflict. It is a "crisis" until further updates. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support The 2008-9 and the 2014 wars were also renewal of decade long conflicts Gaza War (2008–2009), 2014 Gaza War, every country has crisis, like India - Pakistan, Russia-Georgia, but it escalates to a war after certain boundaries are crossed, e.g. Kargil War, Russo-Georgian War. Now it hasn't crossed the thresholds of war but its more than a crisis, there are battles, bot sides are incurring loss of lives, etc. the crisis exists since 1948, and its a new part of it that deserves its own conflict article. Most importantly WP:RS calls it conflict, not the term crisis, so its pure WP:NOR to call it by aa term based on the judgement of a few editors, hope to prioritize WP:RS over everything. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a crisis of a larger conflict. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

​ You can only !vote once. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - certainly not a conflict, the umbrella framework is the Gaza-Israel conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is still a minor event, largely having to do with the failure of 2021 Palestinian elections and fallout of the Hamas-Fatah conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 11:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  The 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes was a part of the larger Kashmir Conflict going on since 1948, the same time as the Gaza-Israel conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which also have spawned separate articles on the Al-Aqsa Intifada, 2014 Gaza War, Gaza War (2008–2009) and so on, this is another prominent phase of it with significant Notable coverages, significant death toll on both sides, significant international diplomatic concern, missile strikes (as someone pointed out below) and the vast majority WP:RS calls it conflict, its pure WP:NOR to use the original term crisis here, we should use the terminology supported by WP:RS rather than that of few individual editors, and the most widely used term in WP:RS is a conflict and we should stick to that but yeah whatever is the outcome of the consensus, I will accept that. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Semi-Support I believe that this would be more of flare-up than a conflict, but yeah a missile strike is a "conflict" DXLBandLokiBlaster 12:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support as there is no question calling it a conflict Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I think this 'crisis' has gone into a full blown conflict by now. God'sNotDead (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Arbpia, non ec editors may not participate in formal discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - wait I think we should really see what direction this is heading in, and whether it will escalate more or not. Naming conflicts is always controversial, and I think for now we should keep as is. Flalf^Talk 15:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support If this isn't conflict, what is? Nerguy (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Note if anyone wants to know the number of people opposing this article name being changed and the number of people supporting the name being changed, its 16 supporting and 12 opposing. BigRed606 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support, this is a big conflict since Israel sent in their forces into Palestine and both sides are air-striking each other with a number of casualties. SVcode(Talk) 16:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support this is clearly more than just a crisis, conflict would better describe the situation. User3749 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, as this is more than simply a crisis and it appears to be an active military conflict. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose:
  • Ground forces have not crossed the border
    • The element of internal riots and such holds ambiguity, as in some cases it involves exchanges of gun fire, on other cases it is merely protests and clashes with police.
      • The whole event is composed of very different sub-events, such as the Mosque police clash, disorder in towns such as Lod, et cetera, and also the Gaza hostilities - which are of a different vain and more describable as a conflict rather than crisis. The fact that this event composes these different elements is a good argument for keeping the title as crisis. --Ester9001 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC) This editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested move discussions per WP:A/I/PIA.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Too early to decide. UserTwoSix (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support — Multiple reliable sources have begun calling it a conflict or something similar, facing criticism since "clashes" and similar terms have been deemed too neutral. For people saying it is too early or too soon, I point to this: multiple sources already say this conflict is worse than 2014. And what is the 2014 conflict article called? It's called 2014 Gaza War. With thousands of rockets fired from Gaza, dozens of Palestinians dead, Israel using chemical weapons, and a ground invasion of Gaza looking not too fictitious, I feel like this is worthy of being called a conflict, and fear it escalating into something much worse. In addition, crisis refers to something that has the potential of escalating into something much more dangerous, and, in this case, the content being covered seems to be a crisis of the second degree. (Al-Aqsa storming + Sheikh Jarrah eviction/protests being the crisis -> The current situation being a conflict/second-degree crisis signalling a war -> A potential war similar to that of 2014). I believe we have entered the "conflict" stage, and support this move. My only misgiving is the potential confusion with Israeli–Palestinian conflict. AccordingClass (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is turning out to be a war. Its more than a conflict or a crisis. At the worst its a civil war. I mean, they're launching rockets and missile and each other! UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is going to escalate into a war very soon. It is likely to be called the Israel-Palestine war soon. The military intervention of Lebanon and Syria exacerbates all this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/05/14/israel-says-rocket-attacks-from-syria-in-the-north-amid-gaza-fighting-in-south/?sh=3c909c645c2d --AmazonBooker (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC) — AmazonBooker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Additionally, the editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested moves per WP:A/I/PIA.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)<
• Support - Far beyond a crisis at this point. Temeku (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - while there is now extreme armed conflict, the article describes numerous things besides just military conflict including the assaults on palestinians and the protests and police suppression. Crisis is a better term for now and we should bide our time to change that. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC) The editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested move discussions per WP:A/I/PIA. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_RandomCanadian for why the above should be allowed to stand. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am counting 17 yea and 13 nay. This is good to change. Some recent opposes are now calling it a war, which is the next step after crisis->conflict->war. Albertaont (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Albertaont: I just struck some comments from editors who were not extended-confirmed (who, per WP:A/I/PIA, cannot participate in internal project discussions). Were you including these individuals in your count? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment Formal discussions are not decided solely on the basis of a votecount, I suggest we just wait for a formal close.Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Still too early for that. If I was pressed for a close at this point the only thing I could do was say "no consensus" because all of the above !votes are statements of personal preference and there's very little external sources or Wikipedia policy (which is available at WP:CRITERIA) used to show the alleged change in usage (the few sources presented are unclear whether they refer to "conflict" as in the current situation or as in the already existing situation - one can just as easily find sources which use "crisis" Beebs or which don't use either term Grauniad). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: It is more fitting to say this is a crisis or standoff phase that is obviously a part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. With context, you can't really have an Israeli–Palestinian conflict within an Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The way I see this title changing in the future is if this series of events eventually spirals into what can officially be called a Third Intifada or, more likely, something like the 2014 Gaza War, which saw a similar environment of tensions between Israel and the Palestinians. With the way things are going between Hamas and the IDF, I'm expecting this crisis to be dubbed as a full-scale war. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Seeing the footage of missiles and air strikes, as well as civilian casualties, it seems more of a conflict than a crisis to be honest. Stevo1000 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support definitely not a crisis anymore, I've seen more and more sources describing it as a conflict. However, this might become a war so we should still wait to change the title in my opinion --Vacant0 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Count Update : The current number of people supporting the article name being changed is 18 and the current number of people who do not want the article name changed is 14. BigRed606 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Courtesy update that this is still WP:NOTAVOTE and that statements of personal opinion (without sources or Wikipedia policy to back them up) are essentially worthless. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment The reasoning between the oppose and support votes aren't even directly opposing each other - support is saying this is more than a crisis and oppose is saying this event should not use the term "conflict" due this being just a part of the ongoing IP conflict. Changing the title to something stronger than crisis without using the word conflict would seemingly be agreeable to most voters here. Of 19 (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: The 2021 Israel-Palestine conflict began the morning of January 1st 2021, but this article is only about more recent events. I would wait for sources to give this a name or change to something more appropriate like 2021 War on Palestinians, although that is a bit risky as sources may be scared of being bombed if they don't give a pro-Israeli name to the violence. Of 19 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. If it does down, it may be seen in hindsight as being less than a crisis, if it regatta further (I hope not!) it will end up being teenaged war. I day wait and see and don't be too hasty and to discussed about selecting the perfect name. Dovid (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has its own article; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been ongoing for decades. When there are notable escalations, they receive their own article titles that clearly distinguish them as a more notable period of escalation within the overarching, elongated conflict. Calling this article "the 2021 Israeli-Palestinian conflict", then, implies a disconnect between the other article and this article - as if this is a new conflict when in fact, this is an escalation of a conflict which was ongoing prior to this and likely will be ongoing after this escalation has ended. For this reason, the proposed title is misleading, and "crisis" is much better suited. Flip^andFlopped ツ 02:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021 (3)

If Wikipedia is to be objective, it must report facts and not opinion. Adding adjectives and adverbs to facts is a form of opinion. As "belligerent" is an adjective, it must be removed to preserve integrity. "Occupation" is also a disputed conclusion, as it implies an unlawful presence. Isn't that the heart of the Israeli-Arab conflict -- whether certain territory is rightfully under the control of Israel or whether it should be rightfully under the control of Arabs? Moreover, isn't it factually false to state that the Gaza Strip is "occupied" by Israel, inasmuch as Israel withdrew all presence from the Gaza Strip in 2005? Thus, "occupation" should removed, as well.

Remove the word "belligerent" in "belligerent occupation." Add a sentence about the number of Israeli deaths. To list number of Palestinian deaths without listing number of Israeli deaths is blatantly antisemitic. 24.130.171.62 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It is the technical term used in the legal literature. As late as 2009 this was officially admitted.

'The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective.' Israel's Ministry of Justice 2009, in Uri Avnery, 'Israel's Most Revolting Law?' Counterpunch, 23/03/2009

Scholars call the situation the longest ongoing conflict in modern history, and define it as an asymmetric war. When squads of soldiers continue to raid family homes all over the West Bank night after night, as they have persisted in still doing, that is not peace. The term is perfectly neutral, descriptive. Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 16:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The term "belligerent" implies Israel is instigating a hostile occupation of East Jerusalem. This terminology is extremely misleading and militates heavily towards the Palestinian side of the conflict. The term "occupation" proper is far more objective and impartial. It is not instructive that the term "belligerent" has been used in the legal vernacular. The average layperson, as well as many scholars, simply refer to it as "occupation" or "military occupation."

False. Belligerent occupation is standard phrasing and completely neutral. That's how the Israeli Supreme Court describes it as well.Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The following quote is taken from the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article titled "MILITARY Occupation":

"Military or belligerent occupation, often simply occupation, is provisional control by a ruling power over a territory, without a claim of formal sovereignty."

It would seem, according to the foregoing paragraph, that the primary usage is "MILITARY" Occupation, whereas belligerent occupation is a secondary usage, according to your own website. Otherwise, the title of the Wikipedia article would be "Belligerent Occupation," and not "Military Occupation".

There is therefore no demonstrable reason to use "belligerent" over "military", the latter being the more commonly understood term irrespective of the interchangeable (or secondary) usage of the term "belligerent" occupation in the scholarly literature. I maintain my belief that the usage of this term is misleading and not superficially neutral to the average reader who does not come from an academic background.

1) WP is not a source. 2) Type 'Israel Supreme Court "belligerent occupation"' into Google and see what you get. 3)Please remember to sign your contributions.Selfstudier (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of language like "stormed"

Wording like "stormed" is neither neutral terminology nor backed up by the reliable references used in the article. Yesterday, there was some discussion in this talk section about whether Israeli police even entered al-Aqsa mosque, or whether the clashes were outside. But in either case, there is more encyclopedic and accurate language that can be used for the confrontation between police and protesters. OtterAM (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The ToI source (we should ideally find some others) says "The international community, including Israel’s Arab allies, condemned the Jewish state Saturday for security forces “storming” of Al-Aqsa during the clashes." (their scare quotes) and it also says "Anger grew on Saturday with the circulation of a video in which a stun grenade is seen detonating inside the Al-Aqsa Mosque, after it was launched into the building by Israeli security forces. According to Channel 12 this was in response to attacks on the forces from within the mosque. Other images online appeared to show the riot police entering the main mosque building amid the violent clash."

I find it difficult to imagine how they entered if not by storming but I will look around for some other sources and perhaps you could do the same? I replaced the article wide neutrality tag with an inline tag next to the word "stormed".Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Storm: "a violent assault on a defended position". If anything, this gives too much credit to Israeli police, since it is a stretch to say that al-Aqsa was "defended" in any meaningful sense. As I stated above, other terms like "raided" have also been used to describe the events at al-Aqsa. The neutrality of this should not be in dispute. WillowCity (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sources:

• Financial Times: Israeli police stormed the compound, which is sacred to both religions, at least three times in the past week, using rubber bullets, tear gas and stun grenades. At least 600 Palestinians were injured.
• Business Standard: Israeli police storm al-Aqsa mosque, hundreds of Palestinians hurt
• The Guardian: The latest violence came after Israeli police stormed the compound early on Monday firing stun grenades and tear gas and clashing with Palestinians inside following days of worsening clashes.
• Al Jazeera: More than 170 Palestinians have been injured after Israeli police stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque...

It seems like fairly common language (especially given that ToI, whose bias, if any, would tend towards downplaying this, still acknowledges it.) I've added FT and the Guardian, which are probably the highest-quality out of these, and removed the tag for now - we can still debate the exact wording, but I'm simply not seeing how a POV tag can be maintained in the lead of the article over wording that is used in, in the article voice, in such high-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Just as a note, this edit isn't really necessary and I'm not sure it adds anything - the sources I added already support that language and are non-opinion pieces, while the added source is an opinion piece. We should rely on the strongest sources available; there's no need to cite an opinion-piece here when we have two non-opinion pieces supporting it at the end of the sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021 (4)

Add clarifying information in the lead as to why Israel targeted "multiple apartment buildings."

It seems somewhat disingenuous to state, "Israel retaliated with airstrikes inside Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings" without mentioning the context that is provided in the very source being cited:

"Israel has said it's targeting buildings where Hamas — the militant group that controls Gaza — stores weapons or has offices. Civilians were warned to evacuate before the strikes, the Israeli military said on Wednesday."

https://www.businessinsider.com/videos-show-israeli-airstrikes-leveling-gaza-apartment-buildings-2021-5

My point is that this feels like an intentional omission.

I recommend including the full context, or removing the "apartment" from "apartment building." Srirachachacha (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The full context should include what both sides said, shouldn't it? Or we could describe the buildings that were hit, look at the CNN source for information.Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

One should be extremely war of words like response. In the cycle of violence each side responds to what the other did. The usual mainstream view is that Hamas provokes: Israel responds, as the primary victim.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Which is blatantly a crock of horseshit given what Israel has been doing to Palestinians this past week: actively genociding them. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:83 (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Unless you have news or statement from organisations that claims as such, please refrain using the Wikipedia talk page as a place to criticise either Israel or Palestine as per Wikipedia:NOTFORUM. MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

So, a few things. If that info is included, it should be a claim attributed to the IDF; it’s not Wiki’s job to uncritically publish press releases from governments, militaries, police departments, etc. as fact. Second, stating that the buildings were used as offices by Hamas (which again, needs to be attributed) implies that they were former apartment buildings now used exclusively as Hamas offices, which is not true. Thousands of people lived in those buildings that are now destroyed. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 22:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

According to CNN, the large building (al-Jawahera) housed "media network companies and other offices". And you are absolutely right, statements from either side need attribution (if we include them at all).Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Um, Hamas, like it or not, came to power via a democratic election under international observation, and has run the Gaza Strip and administered 2,000,000 people for 16 years, That it has offices is obvious. That in itself means nothing. All governments have offices. Of course, if Israel chooses like a few other powers to designate it as a terrorist organization, then even custodians and janitors of a school or building recruited from the lower echelons of Hamas, are thereby 'terrorists' and fair game. This is unfortunately part of the nonsense of western reportage, the mindless reductive use of Hamas as a synonym for a terrorist group when, whatever terror it engages in, like so many governments, it also runs a civil bureaucracy etc., that has nothing to do with threatening anybody (outside Gaza).Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Where in Selfstudier's comment did he call Hamas a terrorist organization? The fact that you see a comment supporting adding info from a press release by the IDF and immediately jump to the conclusion that this person is against Hamas and then begin ranting about how Hamas is being unfairly framed by the west as a terrorist group makes me doubt your ability to add to this article or any other article surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict without biasing the info in support of Palestine. Please, just stick to the facts, your opinion on the conflict isn't needed.

EDIT: I just looked at your user page, and it is clear you have strong opinions in this area that hinder your ability to edit neutrally on this topic. I would suggest leaving the editing of this article to people able to look objectively at the facts. I myself am heavily opinionated on this subject, so I stay out of this and only point out obvious cases of bias here in the talk page. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

You really should apologize, attacking other editors and jumping to accusations of bad faith (particularly against an editor who spends much time finding and analyzing sources in order to contribute high-quality edits) is not appropriate behaviour. 2600:1702:3C80:B60:3079:AC50:917F:28E8 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Ööööhmmm, no, Aknell4 is absolutely right, no need for any apology. 94.219.52.95 (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Passion in an editor is a good thing and they clearly just want an even handed approach. I’m sure if those of us passionate about the topic were actually soap boxing and POV pushing this article would be very different. Namely it would not be labeled as a “crisis” as if this is anything but a largely one sided genocide by a settler-colonialist apartheid state. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:83 (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Ground invasion of Gaza

Per the New York Times a ground invasion of Gaza has begun.[15] you probably need more sources but here is a first one for you.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that link doesn't work for me. Someone has added something to article already but some sources are saying that there has been no entry into Gaza as yet so perhaps we need to wait a bit.Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ground troops are present on the border, but have not entered Gaza. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/306197

--Ester9001 (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Language of:

The language of: "

The Israel Defense Forces states that at least 15 of the Palestinian casualties are confirmed members of Hamas, and also states that some Palestinian civilian casualties were caused by errant rocket launches within the Gaza Strip

"

Should really say that the IDF has so far confirmed 15 Hamas members among the dead. Because this number, 15, was stated when the total dead was only 30 a day or two ago. So saying 'the idf have so far confirmed' would be good to avoid confusion and pay regard to the fact that the event is currently unfodling.

"So far" is an implication, simpler is to date the claim.Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, such as: on the x of may the IDF confirmed. I agree--Ester9001 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Revert "The following day, Israeli police conducted arrests in the al-Aqsa Mosque compound, a major Islamic holy site." to "The following day, Israeli police stormed the al-Aqsa Mosque compound, a major Islamic holy site."

The line about "conducting arrests" creates a distorted picture of events. I strongly suggest the article revert to the prior sentence about police storming al-Aqsa, with the removal of the neutrality tag. I do not understand why this change was made without discussion, let alone consensus. WillowCity (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Zeex.rice in Special:Diff/1022897764. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal or moving of statemnt regarding Gaza from Al-Aqsa section

There is a statment in the 'Al-Aqsa' section: "Militants in Gaza fired rockets into Israel the following night.[66]" This reads as nonsequetor and better belongs in the 'Gaza' section. Please remove or move to the relevant section.

Update on death toll in Gaza

Change from "113 civilians and militants killed, 580+ wounded" to "109 civilians and militants killed, 621 wounded " 3skandar (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The data is from the Health Authority of Gaza's Facebook. The source of the previous citation from Al-Jazeera is unclear, I could not find the "113 deaths in Gaza" figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3skandar (talk • contribs) 02:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 3skandar (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Their Facebook page is not an RS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Add children death in Gaza based according to Gaza Health Authority

Change from "* 20 militants killed (per Hamas & PIJ)" to "* 20 militants and 29 children killed (per Hamas & PIJ)" 3skandar (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Same reason as above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

This talk page is too long. Why not archiving most unused discussion on this page? 182.1.60.223 (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"This talk page is automatically archived by ClueBot III. Any threads with no replies in 3 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived." Milkunderwood (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Can someone with more WP formatting knowledge than me please separate the following notes so they don't look like they belong to the latest Talk section? Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done −Edward (^t⋇_c) 07:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021 (2)

change the last line on Gaza section " On 14 May, Israel Defense Forces' ground and air troops claimed they had troops on the ground and in the air attacking the Gaza Strip,[95][96] although this claim was later retracted.[97]" TO

On the night of May 14, at 00:18, the IDF Spokesman announced that the attacks in the Gaza Strip had been expanded, and that ground forces of the Armored Corps and the artillery were attacking the Gaza Strip.(https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1392953390443991040). In response, Hamas sent it's armed men to the tunnels to prepare for the Israeli fighters, However, the announcement was a ruse by the IDF, who had intelligence on the location of Hamas's tunnels, called "The Metro", and proceeded to attack with air strick and Artillery the tunnels, while Hamas armed men were hiding inside. (https://www.foxnews.com/world/live-updates-israel-calls-up-9000-reservists-ahead-of-a-possible-ground-invasion/ https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/13/middleeast/israel-palestinian-violence-intl/index.html/ https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1393082846324088833). In the cordinated attack, IDF has sent 160 Aircrafs and Fierd 450 bombs on "the metro" in under 35 minuts. it is not clear how meany Hamas armed men were killed, however The IDF estimates houndreds of armed men are killed, and the Rocket manufacturing infestructure Was severely damaged, No infentry was involved, and IDF did not send any ground forces at all. (https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/BybX5Giuu / https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/2021_q2/Article-178966fb8e96971026.htm?sCh=3d385dd2dd5d4110&pId=1898243326). Dotan il89 (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You'd better rewrite that with spellcheck and a grammar. It's garbled.Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

As explained below proposing a social media section, it is too early to evaluate this item. Thye Haaretz piece states that the IDF apologized to media for erroneously stating it had already invaded, and that after the retraction, social media then speculated that it was a deliberate deception. Social media speculation is one thing. Fox et al., picking up rumours another. We should know what to write when the Gaza casualty list is published in a day or two, and solid sources confirm, if any, the link.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect info in infobox

The info box current says that eight civilians were killed in Israel, but the cited article does not support this claim (https://abcnews.go.com/International/dozens-civilians-killed-hundreds-wounded-fighting-israel-hamas/story?id=77662668). Indeed, the article itself says that a total of 8 people have been killed including at least one solider, which means that all certainly cannot be civilians. Recommend mirroring what ix on the Palestine side and writing "8 civilians and militants killed." Dhawk790 (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• UPDATE: The edit now reads "7 civilians killed" but the ABC article does not support this either (https://abcnews.go.com/International/dozens-civilians-killed-hundreds-wounded-fighting-israel-hamas/story?id=77662668). It only confirms that one of the dead was six years old and another was 87, in which case they are civilians, but that means that only a total of 2 civilians are confirmed, not 7. If we followed that practice, the Palestine side would need to be update to subtract the number of militants killed from total dead to produce number of civilians. I do not think this is a good practice, because of the ambiguity. Instead, I recommend using the same practice on both sides of the info box. Present total number dead (including civilians and soldiers) and then provide the breakdown when there is individual info about some of the deaths. Dhawk790 (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021 (3)

Please revert "...a neighborhood of East Jerusalem, which had been annexed by Israel in 1980, though the legality of the annexation is disputed." to "... a neighborhood of East Jerusalem. The area in question, effectively annexed by Israel, remains under international law a part of the Palestinian territories that Israel currently holds under belligerent occupation."

International law is unequivocal on this point. Once again, this change was made without discussion or consensus. I really wish people would familiarize themselves with WP:NPOV and especially WP:FALSEBALANCE before making inane edits in service of a partisan political agenda. WillowCity (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC) WillowCity (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes that is correct, and someone should restore the earlier text. It is a cliché here that everything is 'disputed' as if there were some parity between the parties, when only one party, against international consensus re law, 'disputes' the obvious. There is a learned paper by Lustick that shows no formal law has ever passed the Knesset 'annexing' East Jerusalem, and international law is umambiguous. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

done.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. The Israeli courts have interpreted the 67 and Jerusalem Law together as an effective annexation, I would think that because Israeli law has been applied there. None of it is recognized by anyone other than Israel and while they are free to dispute whatever pleases them, it is of no legal consequence.Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Nishidani — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate Sentence?

In "April-May 2021 Ramadan events" It says the following sentence twice:At the start of Ramadan in April 2021, Israeli police blocked off access to the Damascus Gate where Muslim worshippers usually congregate during the holiday once at the beginning of the paragraph and at the end of the paragraph. Should I remove the last instance? LOMRJYO^{(talk•contrib)} 13:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I sorted that out now. Good spot.Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Social Media section

A significant number of the events has been driven by the inflaming impact of social media, and the content can be divided into two types (which are already the object of analysis in a few sources) From April's TicToc scene onwards, we should prefer, at this stage, thematic concentration rather than a blow by blow chronology as is normal with breaking news pages initially.

• (A) False, staged disinformation to achieve a propaganda impact.

Sources

(1)Sheera Frenkel, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/technology/misinformation-israeli-palestinian-conflict.html 'Lies on Social Media Inflame Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,' New York Times 14 May 2021

• (B)Real-time shocking stuff that is captured on phones and duly circulated then on Youtube, twitter and other media.
• (C) A third element, strategically placed disinformation to draw the enemy into a trap, as has been reported for the Israeli ground invasion, said to be diffused in order to get Hamas operatives to concentrate in tunnels in preparation for defense, so they can been annihilated en masse, possibly should be distinguished from (A), which deals with deliberate government fraud for achieving a political consensus about who to blame.

Sources

Amir Tibon, Allison Kaplan Sommer, 'Israeli Army Tells Foreign Media It Has Ground Forces in Gaza – Then Apologizes for Misleading Them,' Haaretz 14 May 2021

Editors are invited to use this section to notify each other of sources that analyse this aspect. Since the usual news outlets, in their haste print whatever crosses their desks, are all too frequently complicit in the disinformation that always accompany warfare, it is best to limit the sourcing to references written by competent analysts. Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to break this out into its own section (or subsection under escalation). We probably need more sources to do that, though. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Socialist lawyers

This edit showcases (because she is a socialist and therefore unreliable?) the opinion of one housing expert, when she is not the only person holding that view. The edit thus in singling her out, makes the challenge, no doubt one with several figures engaged in the court proceedings, idiosyncratic, ergo POV pushing. Alsaafin for example states this:

Khalil Toufakji, a Palestinian cartographer and expert on Jerusalem, said he travelled to Ankara in 2010 to search in the Ottoman-era archives for a document that negates any Jewish ownership of Karm al-Jaouni.“I found the deed and presented it to the Israeli district court, which promptly rejected it,” Toufakji told Al Jazeera. After more digging, Toufakji found out in 1968 that Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, issued a decree – signed by the finance minister at the time – which stated Israel was bound to the Jordan-UNRWA agreement. “This fact is what has been raised to the Jerusalem High Court on behalf of the Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah,” he said, but added there is little reason to believe the court will rule in favour of them. “Israeli courts – judge, jury and legislation – are all in the service of the Jewish settlers,” he said.

So, the statement should be anonymous, in the passive voice, as before, adding the Alsaafin ref.Nishidani (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(2) The mention that a decree of the Knseet in 1968 confirmed Israel recognized it was bound to the Jordan-UNRWA agreement (if so rendering later legal developments suspect) ought to be followed up and if confirmed, entered in the background section.Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The statement shouldn't be made in wikivoice unless it's generally accepted. That claim should be attributed absent better sourcing IMO, per WP:INTEXT. If it's a widely held opinion surely more sources can be found? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't see how the earlier text was not neutral.

the authenticity of these documents has been questioned

That simply states a fact that the authenticity is challenged, and we have two sources for it. The passive voice is neutral.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That statement implies it's generally questionable. Especially if only one person questions it, attribution is better IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

No.in English it does not imply 'general questionable'. Grammatically it just states the fact which the following details elucidate, i.e., that on several occasions it has been questioned.

During the meeting arranged with the Palestinian lawyers, those specifically working on the case informed the delegation that in December 2009 they had found Ottoman period land title documents in the archives in Ankara which cast serious doubt upon the authenticity and accuracy of the documents used by the Jewish Committees and the Nahalat Shimon Company to claim ownership of much of the land in Sheikh Jarrah. The lawyers informed the delegation that these doubts are not being considered properly by the Israeli courts.'Enforcing Housing Rights; The Case of Sheikh Jarrah. Report of the fact-finding mission to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory,' Avocats Sans Frontières May 2011 p.13

In October 2009, the Hijazi family commenced further proceedings seeking a declaration that the land was in its ownership, or in the alternative, was not owned by the Committees.124 During the meeting arranged with the Palestinian lawyers, those specifically working on the case informed the delegation that in December 2009 they had found Ottoman-period land title documents in the archives in Ankara which cast serious doubt upon the Committees original primary registration in 1972 and the accuracy of the documents used in that registration.In April 2010, two weeks after the death of Mr Hijazi, the District Court found that the claim had already been adjudicated on in the original 1997 case, that the new documents did not reach the relevant threshold to reopen the case whilst further noting that the new material would not lead to a different result from that originally determined by the court.pp.44-45

Further, the attribution we have now is incorrect in assigning the view to one lawyer of the Haldane Society, when she was writing a summary of the information available to several prominent lawyers in a fact-finding mission, commissioned from the Haldane Society's lawyers by Avocats Sans Frontières and financed by Belgium. They are not 'socialists'.

That makes three sources, referring to three different cases regarding the area, in three different years, attest to the fact that the authenticity of the 1876 documents has been repeatedly challenged in Israeli courts. I don't know where the truth lies: that is not my remit here. I only know that falsification of land title documents by settlers has been frequently documented, even in Israeli courts, over the last decades, and, since we have strong external testimony that such doubts exist, this should be noted as a fact. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I've said anything about "socialist lawyers". If it's been frequently documented, please provide some more reliable sources and we can better discuss. Avocats Sans Frontières is an advocacy group / NGO, clearly not RS. WP:INTEXT is clear that some forms of attribution (or lack thereof) can make it unclear whether a statement is a minority or majority position. You seem to be saying it's a majority position, which may be true (idk), but then surely you can provide more sources to support it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

However, now that you do raise the socialist point, are you saying that the magazine "Socialist Lawyer" is not written by socialists? According to our article on Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, The Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers is a socialist and legal campaigning organisation in the United Kingdom. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Why does it matter if they are socialist?Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The editor who changed the text fussed to highlight the 'socialist' background. I don't think that relevant, and the fact that the paper is commissioned and copyrighted by a Belgian legal rights think tank suggests that all this is pointy. Why fuss over this? The passive voice over a fact is neutral. It doesn't need tweaking.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling East Jerusalem a "belligerent occupation"

This 100% ignores the US, Kosovo, Guatemala, and others openly declaring Israel the unified capital. International law is not some unified anti-Israel fiction.

I think that the term should be used carefully and only be applied in cases where covering perspectives or opinions, analogous the "reception" section of a film article. InvadingInvader (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree.

The view of a handful of countries, including the one violating customary international law and international treaty law, does not suffice to change the unequivocal international consensus. Likening international law to a film's critical reception is, if not in bad faith, a gross mischaracterization. This is not a matter of differing perspectives or an area open to interpretation on which reasonable people can disagree. Annexation is prohibited under the UN charter and under customary international law. This is not a matter of conflicting interpretation, it is a matter of settled legal fact. There is no grounds for changing this. WillowCity (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This was already dealt with in a section back up the page. It's a standard phrasing without implications. Also recognition of capital and recognition of sovereignty are not the same thing.Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Riots in the Al Aqsa Mosque

The section in the summary on Israeli police entering the Al Aqsa Mosque negates to mention their reasoning: Their were Molotov cocktails being thrown at them and put in Islam's third holiest site. "Riot police entering the Al Aqsa Mosque, where Molotov cocktails where being thrown at Police by Palestinian rioters" makes more sense.

Relevant sources? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Relevant sources saying that, Palestinians had Molotov cocktails at Al Aqsa Mosque

• https://www.timesofisrael.com/police-on-high-alert-after-palestinian-riots-in-jerusalem-gaza-rocket-fire/
• https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1434077/Palestine-mosque-news-al-aqsa-mosque-east-Jerusalem-israel-EVG
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israeli-clashes-palestinians-turn-deadly-jerusalem-tensions-spread-n1266906
• https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/eid-al-fitr-thousands-of-palestinians-at-al-aqsa-after-night-of-clashes-668032
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57053074
• https://vietnamtimes.org.vn/violence-escalated-between-palestine-and-israel-31536.html
• https://www.businessinsider.com/jerusalem-spiralling-violence-amid-spike-in-west-bank-revenge-attacks-2021-5

Shalom, 212.64.210.90 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Several of these sources are seriously biased (JPost and ToI especially), many of them do not state that the alleged Molotov cocktails were anywhere near al-Aqsa, and all of these sources cite claims by the Israeli authorities. I do not think any addition should be made, it's speculative and unnecessarily inflammatory. False balance[[16]] at its worst. WillowCity (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Its not false balance at all .The JPOST and TOL is respected paper of record if we use Al-Jazeera there is no problem to use this Shrike (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a number of unreliable/possibly biased sources there (I say possibly because they're not on WP:RSP and I'm too lazy to dig atm). BBC etc seem to satisfy some kind of appropriately worded statement, maybe best attributed to the Israeli police. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@WillowCity BBC ,businessinsider and NBC are also biased ? It should be added that according to Isreali-police/IDF/whatever Palestinians had Molotov cocktails at Al Aqsa Mosque and some of them were actively throwing them on the police. Else this article ain't fair. What the Isreali-police/IDF says matters. Shalom, -- 212.64.210.90 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

They arguably do have some bias but that is neither here nor there. See WP:RSP, Business Insider is not confirmed to be reliable. The NBC article only refers to Molotov cocktails in relation to Lod, and as I said above, BBC relies on the ex post facto justification that Israeli police provided. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for the IDF/Israeli government and we should strenuously resist attempts to turn it into one. WillowCity (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

ToI link says On Wednesday, according to Palestinian health officials, 16-year-old Palestinian teenager Said Odeh was shot and killed by Israeli forces who said he was throwing Molotov cocktails at troops. That is well after the storming of al-Aqsa and doesnt even say it happened there. NBC says On Monday night, unrest spread to Lod, a city southeast of Tel Aviv, where Mayor Yair Revivo said "Arab youths" vandalized public property, threw Molotov cocktails and lowered the Israeli flag to be replaced with the Palestinian one. He said one person was shot to death, with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reporting it was an Arab man killed by a Jewish resident. Lod is not al-Aqsa. AGF not being a suicide pact, I am not going to assume that any of the other sources support anything you claim they do given that the first two reliable ones I looked at do not. Kindly dont make things up, it just wastes peoples time. nableezy - 17:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021 (4)

The start of this round of conflict began on April 15th 2021, with videos of Palestinian teens assaulting innocent Jewish people, for tiktok views, which led to Israeli extremist youths to exact revenge. Non-the-less, the page begins with events on May 6th 2021. This is misleading and should be updated to fit the reality of this horrific and gut wrenching conflict.

"On 15 April, a TikTok video of a Palestinian teen slapping an ultra-orthodox Jewish man went viral, leading to several copycat incidents."

Thank you for your time, and may we see peace in our lifetime. 24.114.68.45 (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. LOMRJYO^{(talk•contrib)} 14:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Lomrjyo

Reliable sources

• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israeli-police-arrest-dozens-after-night-violence-anti-arab-chants-n1265039
• https://www.timesofisrael.com/east-jerusalem-man-indicted-for-slapping-haredi-jews-on-light-rail-filming-it/
• https://news.sky.com/story/jerusalem-police-use-water-cannon-and-wrestle-with-protesters-in-second-night-of-clashes-12285290
• https://www.timesofisrael.com/east-jerusalem-teenager-arrested-on-suspicion-of-slapping-haredi-boys-on-train/
• https://www.ynetnews.com/article/SyFU7k0IO
• https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2021/04/23/ramadan-nights-see-israeli-police-and-palestinians-face-off-in-jerusalem.html

212.64.210.90 (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That has been in the article for some time. Do you read articles before suggesting edits? Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but can't you read that Lomrjyo asked for reliable sources. -- 212.64.210.90 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Because edit requests are almost always declined automatically without RS. Flalf^Talk 18:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I request to merge this discussion with the start of conflict talk page. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

West Bank

I added a sec for this as it appears also to be escalating. with 4 deaths reported today. The infobox shows 10 deaths, idk whether that includes those 4. Can someone pin down how many deaths/injured since the 6th? Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Start of the conflict 6th of May

The conflict is, additionally to all mentioned aspects - eviction, radicalisation, religious and cultural timing, fuelled by increasing assaults from ultra orthodox settlers on Palestinians in 2021 as stated by the UN. "According to the experts, the violence has been mainly motivated by ideology and intended to “intimidate and terrorise Palestinians”, and prevent them from accessing their land while pushing others to move." Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/14/un-experts-highlight-rise-in-israeli-settler-against-palestinians Moreover https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/04/1089752

The alert follows 771 incidents of settler violence causing injury to 133 Palestinians and damaging 9,646 trees and 184 vehicles, “mostly in the areas of Hebron, Jerusalem, Nablus and Ramallah”, the experts said, citing data gathered by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). In the joint statement, Mr. Lynk said that settler violence was “ideologically motivated and primarily designed to take over land but also to intimidate and terrorize Palestinians”.

Pregnant women, young children and older people were not off-limits, the rights expert explained, particularly in rural areas, where livestock, agricultural lands, trees and homes were targeted.

Together with the expansion of Israeli settlements, the settler violence was intended to make the daily lives of Palestinians “untenable”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:c3:ff00:4168:bcba:c49c:e3dd:a873 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you asking for an amendment to the article? Please state exactly what it is, add/change something? Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You must be joking if you consider adding this inflammatory point and biased opinion made by Al Jazeera and the UN. Everyone knows of the TikTok videos of Palestinians violently assaulting innocent Ultra-Orthodox Jews which actually initiated this particular episode. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, the venerable social media platform TikTok and its user-generated content supersedes and is more reliable than the notoriously biased and one-sided United Nations. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 22:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Erm... The BBC references the TikTok videos as do other sources including TOI... Why you'd think the UN has a shred of neutrality when it comes to Israel is beyond me... There were literally organisations formed to expose the UN's bias. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Lebanese Civilian killed by Israel military

See here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/14/lebanese-man-killed-by-israeli-troops-on-border — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawk790 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Already included in the infobox. Hezbollah has identified him to be one of their fighters [17][18]. EkoGraf (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

War?

Isn't this technically a war? This is certainly more than a conflict if they are launching rockets at each other.

Considering there has been no formal declaration of war, no. The broader Arab–Israeli conflict was punctuated by the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Suez Crisis, Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War and so on. Until there is an official declaration of war (or equivalent authorization of a "policing action" or somesuch) this should remain a "conflict". Alternatively, when WP:RS start calling it a war, so will we. The current name of "crisis" I think will serve until such time, as this is a flashpoint of the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. BSMRD (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Well what's the difference between crisis and war? A declaration? They're launching rockets. This is clearly more than a simple crisis, right? UB Blacephalon (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Are there many sources calling it a war? I'm guessing not. Considering this conflict is (so far) less intsense than many previous ones that aren't considered wars, this one is not a war (yet). “WarKosign” 07:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Technically speaking there cannot be a "war" between occupier and occupied because occupation is the result of war, there can only be "resistance" to occupation which is the case here and not only in Gaza. That is also a reason why we also refer to the IP conflict as a conflict even though it has gone on for so long, it is not technically a war because there is an occupation. The only annexed part, East Jerusalem and a part of the rest of the WB, is not legally recognized outside of Israel so that is also an occupation.Selfstudier (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Claims of occupation are actually irrelevant. Definition of war is "a state of armed conflict between *different nations or states* or different groups within a nation or state". Since this conflict is between a state and a terrorist organization, it cannot be called a war. “WarKosign” 09:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no "claim" of occupation, it is an established fact. The state of occupation negates it being a war without the need for any further explanation, discussions about declarations or anything else.Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You need to keep your quite obvious POV/agenda off the TP's, Selfie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.52.57 (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating how people make this claim. It's a pointless discussion, we agree that this article shouldn't have "war" in the title and the reason is less important. “WarKosign” 10:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"diferent Groups within a nation of state". Arabs vs jews? Israel (country) vs Palestine (Territory)? Now that there is ground troops going in gaza, Im surprised they haven't declared it yet! UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There aren't ground troops in Gaza: [19]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of changing "minors" to "children".

The word "minors" from the cited source was changed to "children" in the casualties section.

It currently says, "As of 14 May, at least 126 people have been killed in Gaza, including 31 children, and more than 950 others wounded; eight deaths in Israel were reported." The source cited says, "Thirty-one of those killed were minors".

I don't think that's a neutral change. Children usually implies a younger age while minor usually means under 18 years old.

173.177.109.10 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I’ve fixed the issue. X-Editor (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about this change. If you're not an adult, you're a child. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Typically, many of Hamas militants are technically minors (16-17 years old). I wouldn't call them children. “WarKosign” 07:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Minors is correct. The last comment is frankly repellant, a piece of nonsense funneled straight out of the Israeli defense industry's hasbara machine, with its endless insistence that despite the large number of children its operations regularly kill in Gaza, Hamas or the minors' family are to blame for putting them in the 'pinpoint', ethically observant line of fire, the 'line' of fire being ordnance that can create 8,500 degree Fahrenheit fireballs in densely populated zones, stuff like GNU31/MK-84s. Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are you 'retired' from? You are an active editor. Change your home page.

Learn to read, dear Anon. I'm re-tyred.Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

May I request that somebody add this link to this article? If this article gets moved, the page I created can also get moved? Thank you! Neocon1 (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Question: Do you mean under the See also section? ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 06:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a problem to add the link but I would say that article is slightly misnamed if it is only international protests. The Palestinians have also been protesting daily.Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: if nobody objects to a page move, and you can suggest a better title, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be moved. ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 10:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I have moved it to International protests over the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis with a redirect so it can be added if you like, no?Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Added.to the See also section. ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 10:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Deaths and injuries on the Israeli side

Hey, I’m Israeli Some of the information isn’t true.. 9 deaths in Israel And in Gaza 120 of the deaths were actually terrorists It’s important to mention that Hamas sent 1800 rockets to Israel and 300 lended in Gaza, so Israel didn’t kill innocent children. The IDF tells them to leave they just don’t... The rockets I’m getting on a daily basis are war crimes.! Israel hasn’t done any war crimes.! I’m currently sitting in a bomb shelter, in fear. And yes, it’s not Gaza, it’s Israel. Israel is under attack. And the media is only showing one side and people are stupid enough to believe that. Seagull2000 (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you want to add or change in the article? It's not enough that something is true, Wikipeida article needs reliable sources. “WarKosign” 08:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Already 10 deaths in Israel And medical treatment was given for 663 people Seagull2000 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Total Civilians Killed in Israel

In the infobox, neither of the articles cited provide a total number civilians or back up the number given (eight). This article does give the total number and say seven. Can we update with the new number/link?

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/05/15/world/israel-gaza-updates#israeli-and-palestinian-officials-say-theyre-open-to-talks-even-as-the-violence-spreads Dhawk790 (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The numbers keep changing and many sources are out of date. It's not very important to have the most up-to-date numbers, it's better to wait for them to stop growing and then to use numbers backed up by several reliable sources. “WarKosign” 10:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Protesters

Hello, the term protesters for ALL the violence is not neutral. There is knife and gun attacks, arsonists, lynching, rock throwing on civilians etc

What should be written is " Protesters and militants" at minima. --Jeanmagen (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Usually we follow what sources say. Do you have some?Selfstudier (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article references protestors as well as "rioters" at various points, while groups that have been described as militant are described as militant in this article. The change you're suggesting is at best editorializing and at worst obfuscating the facts. The term "militant" has a clear meaning, related to engagement in warfare or combat. The mere fact of violence occurring does not turn civilians into militants, regardless of what the Israeli authorities might wish to portray. As Selfstudier said, please follow the required format when suggesting edits: recommend concrete changes, backed up with reliable and relevant sources. An example of a concrete change would be suggesting a change from "In Bat Yam, Jewish extremists attacked Arab stores and beat pedestrians." to "In Bat Yam, groups of Jewish militants attacked Arab stores and beat pedestrians." WillowCity (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot example of non-related acts to the protesters. For example

Add "And gunmans" https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210513-jewish-man-wounded-by-gunfire-in-lod-israel-police Add "and stabbers" https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-teen-seriously-hurt-in-beersheba-stabbing-arab-israeli-suspect-arrested/amp/

Please talk to me politely whitout ad-hominem, it's unacceptable. --Jeanmagen (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"Rioters" is verifiable for both sides IIRC. I tweaked text earlier to remove it as a descriptor for one side's protestors. No objection to anyone reinstating rioters, but if it's done then it has to be done for both sides for NPOV. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel like a good practice would just to say 'protestors' if it was non-violent, and 'rioters' if it was violent. I suppose when gun fire is exchanged by both sides then this is something else, literally terrorists of militants, mobs of whoever, et cetera. --Ester9001 (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Casualties, age and gender

Why is it important to distinguish the casualties between female, children and male? How is this important? DerElektriker (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hamas tends to exaggerate numbers of women and children in numbers of casualties they report, in order to create international pressure on Israel to stop the operation. “WarKosign” 12:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC) @WarKosign: I am certain that you have no evidence for this claim. How exactly do you think such an (Israeli) claim could be verified anyway? The IDF are unable to see who they have killed when these buildings are destroyed. Do you think that the list of 40 children I linked to below was created out of thin air? It is a grave disrespect to the memory of these recently deceased children to question their short existence without any evidence. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Whereas the IDF merely lies to the press. And why we should treat statements from either party as unreliable.-Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Because they want to give sensibly to the human cost, Hamas would not attack if there was no rallying effect... they know they can't win with rockets.--Jeanmagen (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC) If you mean this, it wasn't a lie but a manipulation, and once the goal was achieved, intentionally vague statement was clarified. Hamas, on the other hand, tends to stick to their claims even when everybody knows they are false. For example, prepare for their declaration of victory once Israel decides to cease fire. “WarKosign” 13:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-disinformation.html and it is not the first time the IDF have been found out. As for declarations of victory, past events of similar nature point to things coming to an end only when both sides are able to manufacture a victory narrative.Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC) I'll have to trust you that article says what you say it says. I don't have a NYTimes subscription. “WarKosign” 13:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC) The source says the IDF have duped international press for the (claimed) purpose of achieving military objectives by deceiving targets. It doesn't seem to say the IDF manufactured a false victory narrative. If anything it says the opposite: The spokesman’s office waited two hours — long enough for Hezbollah fighters to declare victory and stand down — before announcing that no Israeli troops had actually been hurt. It seems they deceived the press in a manner that made them seem to have taken more casualties than they did -- I wouldn't call that 'claiming victory'. In any case, how does any of this relate to this article? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC) It doesn't, we're foruming when we shouldn't (so are you). For good orders sake I did not say that the victory narrative stuff was in the NYT article, that was just a response to what WK said before.Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC) No, I don't really care which side is spinning narratives or why (I think it's above my pay grade and the world probably doesn't need my analysis). I'm just writing out what the NYT source said, for clarification. This section might matter to the extent of whether we should be distinguishing based on demographics of those killed, but outside that yeah, I think this discussion will probably do no good. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC) It does not relate to the article yet, it will once the conflict is over. I was saying that the separate count of women and children is done in order to imply that they were non-militan. Hamas tends, as a method, to inflate number of women and children, count all the 16-17 years old militants as children and to never reveal true numbers of killed militants. They need to create narrative of Israel massacaring innocent civilian population that they are defending in order to continue using their own civilians as human shields while firing on Israeli civilians. “WarKosign” 13:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Well the rather shopworn human shields argument is just as much a narrative, isn't it?Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC) I can definitely see this conversation going south from here, so I'll just support what WarKosign is saying about including women and children. Although I would be in support of a civilian/militant split instead of a men/women/children split. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC) The usual split is combatant vs. non-combatant. We should follow what reliable sources say, keeping in mind that, likely, neither side is innocent in any of this (FFS, the conflict's been there since 1948...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC) We saw it in 2009 and we saw it again in 2014. Each element is familiar: the lopsided death toll, Palestinian deaths outnumbering Israeli ones; the pictures of flattened buildings; the tears of the bereaved. And outside the region, the same armies of keyboard warriors, each parroting the talking points of their side, insistent that only their own pain counts, blind to the losses of the other. Jonathan Freedland, Once this violence in Israel and Gaza ends, there can be no return to ‘normal’ The Guardian 15 May 2021 WK. You always appear to pop up when Gaza is bombed and trot out the usual IDF/Israeli intelligence memes. Hamas is the elected government of that Strip, and employs most people. Anyone employed by Hamas is thereby shrewdly branded a 'militant' by the hasbana machine and Israeli intelligence in order to downscale the civilian casualties, and make out that its offloading of massively destructive bombs in civilian areas has some collateral damage but mainly hits 'militants' civilians or otherwise. This has been documented endlessly, and you really should desist from this POV tripe. Wartime is notoriously a fog (both sides) and editors should just try to wade through the snapjudgement bullshit in endless sources, to eke out the bare facts.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC) By way of illustration, the latest in Israel's high-tech pinpoint Hamas targeting wiped out a family of 10, 8 children and two mothers. No male casualty reported. Perhaps the male was a Hamas militant, who knows. He wasn't there. Jack Khoury Ten Family Members Killed in Israeli Airstrike on Gaza Haaretz 15 May 2021. No doubt some member of the clan was a male 'militant' of Hamas, but if so, he wasn't there.Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC) The fact that Hamas won the elections 15 years ago is of no relevance. It is internationally considered a terrorit organization, and every employee of the organization is a legitimate target. Perhaps in this specific incident they did not fudge the numbers, but focusing attention on this case is an example of media manipulation. Why not also report many other cases where only military infrastructure and militants were hit, despite them insisting to be in close proximity to civilians? Despite all of Hamas's efforts, the number of civilian casualties in Gaza is shockingly low, and it can only be attributed to IDF making tremendous effort. “WarKosign” 16:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Drop your disinformation campaign please. It's so meticulously 'official' that it is embarrassing to read. We can read that crap on any Israeli government or IDF. Y website. You should know better having participated in so many war related edits, that stating:'every employee of the organization is a legitimate target' is false. Human Rights Watch noted that many of Israel's airstrikes, especially during the first day, targeted police stations as well as security and militia installations controlled by Hamas. According to the Jerusalem Post, an attack on the police academy in Gaza City on December 27 killed at least 40, including dozens of cadets at their graduation ceremony as well as the chief of police, making it the single deadliest air attack of the campaign to date. Another attack, on a traffic police station in the central Gaza town of Deir al-Balah, killed a by-stander, 12-year-old Camilia Ra`fat al-Burdini. Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes. Personally approving as a target anyone (janitors, schoolteachers, health workers etc.on Hamas's government payroll) who is an employee of Hamas means you don't give a fuck for international law. I'm fine with that. It is exquisitely an integral approach by Israel to that legal lay of the land. But I vigorously object to you trying to blindside editors coming to this area without much background knowledge. So please desist from attempts to seed falsehoods and pull the wool over the eyes of editors here, or act as spo(o)k(e)sperson for the IDF with your proud assessment of how it is 'making tremendous effort... to keep civilian casualties in Gaza . . . shockingly low.' That is about as offensive a piece of hasbara one can make- 40 named minors and children dead, 8 in just one strike on a family, out of 140 means that in your view, it's a praiseworthy sign of the IDF's decency, its 'tremendous efforts to not hurt innocents' that when it operates only 30% of the dead turn out to be kids. 'shockingly low'. Sheesh.Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC) This is unfocused and emotional talk clearly, but I would say that if Israel were not compassionate, then they would fire a proportional number of missiles as Gaza have fired, over two thousand, and if Israel did that, probably tens of thousands of people in Gaza would die... --Ester9001 (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Collapsed everything besides the initial question per WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 01:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There’s no picture of the destruction caused by israeli air strikes

Why there are no pictures of the complete destruction of the buildings caused by the Israeli air strikes on Gaza, as it is clearer and more destructive than the impact left by the Hamas rockets? Moudinho1996 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to find and upload free images to wikipedia, then perhaps they can be used. Note that for neutrality there should be roughly the same amount of images depicting damage Hamas caused to Israel. “WarKosign” 12:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Pictures of damage in Gaza would be helpful. It's often difficult to get freely licensed images early on in current events. We can't use agency/commercial images, and they don't fall under WP:NFCC, which tends to limit what can be displayed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's unlikely we'll get photos inside Gaza for a bit. Maybe a news agency would be willing to release an image via OTRS but I doubt it. Guess we wait. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Moudinho1996: Copyright. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Note that for neutrality there should be roughly the same amount of images depicting damage Hamas caused to Israel." That makes little sense, since Israel's airstrikes causes proportionally many times more death and destruction than Hamas rockets do. And now that Israel is purposely targetting outside media offices in Gaza, you can say goodbye to any neutral covering or free photos from the Palestinian side. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Correct. I think in 2014 the war produced 18,000 buildings/houses destroyed by Israel as opposed to one Israeli home destroyed. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It will be noted that the reason for this is the Israeli Iron-Dome defence system, and there is a great deal of shrapnel and such causing injuries and smaller scale damage across Israel, which should be covered in equal extent to the Gaza destruction. --Ester9001 (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, that would mean we should show less images of destruction in Israel, simply because there is proportionally less. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Iron Dome has nothing to do with it. Compare the strike damage (explosive power) of those Hamas rockets that struck Israeli buildings, with the strike damage of Israel's ordnance on Gaza's buildings, Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

True that the explosive damage seems to be greater for the air strikes, however my point was that even though it is much smaller scale, the incidents of damage, even if the damage is minor is still roughly the same in number on both sides, compare for example a building demolished in Gaza to a piece of shrapnel killing a man in israel, or littering towns with debris, and breaking windows in the shockwave. Even though the damage is lesser on the Israeli side, there are still just as many examples and photographs. You would not leave with a false impression, as you would see that the damage is worse on the Gaza side even when there is an equal number of images for each. --Ester9001 (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah thats not what NPOV says as far as proportion of images. Will look for usable images, al-jazeera in the past offered up some under a cc license. nableezy - 01:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Background to the intercommunal violence in Israel proper

There's no mention in the article of the background to the current violence in mixed cities between Arabs and Jews, the first of its kind in decades. Multiple reliable sources point to decades of discriminatory policies, various inequalities, political incitement, among others as historical context.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/world/asia/israel-lod-arab-jewish.html
• https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/13/israel-palestine-violence-protests-hamas-netanyahu-gaza-west-bank/
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/14/the-guardian-view-on-intercommunal-violence-in-israel-a-dangerous-development-with-deep-roots
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/14/violence-israel-gaza-bloodshed-palestinians

—Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 17:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"Multiples reliable sources point to decades of discriminatory polices, et cetera."

One cannot quote an article where a writer expresses his opinion on a subject and say: look this is a reliable source for this viewpoint. Articles as citations are for News, not politics! --Ester9001 (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian's editorial is not a single person's view, it can't be viewed as a regular opinion piece, and you ignore 2 news articles from NYT and FT; but I digress, here are more sources;

• "Palestinian citizens of Israel have rioted in several cities since Monday night, burning cars and Jewish-owned properties, as anger at the Gaza conflict, as well as at decades of discrimination dating back to the foundation of the state of Israel, found its expression in street violence." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/world/middleeast/as-gaza-conflict-heightens-a-wave-of-arab-unrest-spreads-across-israel.html

• "The town of Lydda posed an early test of how the Israeli state would treat Palestinians. It is a legacy playing out today in violence between Jews and Arabs in Lod, as it’s now known." ... "Residents say it is also a reaction, more specifically, to the escalating demographic contest for control of mixed cities, and growing hostility to the Arab minority." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/world/asia/israel-palestinian-Lydda.html

• " [Arabs] have citizenship, including the right to vote, but face widespread discrimination." https://news.yahoo.com/ethnic-violence-rocks-israel-arabs-063205437.html

• "Arab experts and activists say the violence was fueled by unrest in Jerusalem that has brought Israel to the brink of another Gaza war, but is rooted in deeper grievances that go back to the founding of the state." https://news.yahoo.com/ethnic-violence-rocks-israel-arabs-063205437.html

• "Israel’s Arabs vote and receive the same social benefits as Jews, though Israeli human-rights groups say discrimination over jobs, education and housing is widespread in practice." https://www.wsj.com/articles/israels-new-challenge-violence-among-its-own-citizens-11621028137

—Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 06:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Failure of cabinet formation by Netanyahu, in the wake of 2021 Israel elections

I see there are talks of Palestinians being unhappy because of postponed elections. But there are also talks of Netanyahu having a hand in the events leading up to this situation, having failed to form a coalition after 2021 Israeli legislative election and the second mandate being given to the opposition leader Yair Lapid, to form a new government. I believe it is important to note this too.

Failure to form a coalition by either candidate and possible re-elections are not a done deal yet. With time there will probably be sources linking electoral results with the military conflict, but at the moment there can be nothing but speculation so it's not a suitable subject for a wikipiedia article. “WarKosign” 18:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Your sources? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Names and ages of 40 children killed in Gaza

See [20]. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Cancellation of Palestinian elections as cause

I have reverted this for input from editors as to whether the material and sources given in the article constitute evidence of causation. It is not clear to me that they do. The discussion above refersSelfstudier (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

For instance, this CNN analysis mentions elections failure both in Palestine and Israel but only as unhelpful factors at the end of the article. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/12/middleeast/israel-palestinian-explainer-intl-cmd/index.html

There is an entire quasi-paragraph of eight sources, of which only one, the spectator article attempts any sort of link (however remote) between the start of the clashes to the election. The Spectator quote "There has been a feeling in Israel lately that Hamas had put violence on the back burner in favour of courting international legitimacy. The cancellation of the Palestinian elections this month – as well as the need to show a newly emboldened Iran that funding terror in Gaza would produce value for money – put paid to that, causing Hamas to reach for devastating Plan B." has been magically synthesized into "A piece in The Spectator argued that the cancellation of Palestinian elections contributed towards Hamas's use of military confrontation rather than diplomatic tactics." Reverting entire paragraph until it can be re-written to remove OR and Synth. Albertaont (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

militant killed

where do you find 75 per Israel???

The Israeli military has put the number of militants killed so far in the Israeli attacks at between 80 and 90. https://news.yahoo.com/israel-fires-artillery-gaza-amid-221914279.html/

I can't find another number, please correct the wrong numbers. thanks --Sandtransman (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Source for the figure of 75 dead per Israel is cited right next to it [21]. Quote - "Israel says its attacks have killed more than 75 militants...". The other 80-90 per Israel cited by Reuters (which I myself added before) is from May 14th, while the 75 dead WSJ report is from May 15th, which makes the figure reported the day earlier outdated. As per Wiki guidelines, we use the newer, more up-to-date figure. EkoGraf (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the answer, I guess the reason is the wsj data was an error. I don't see a reason to lower the estimation while today some more were killed. --Sandtransman (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

On the general point I was under the assumption we're using highest figures unless source corrects or is contradicted by multiple others. For example, Reuters 11 minutes ago wrote 11 Palestinians died on Friday. Our article says 12. I'm not going to go change that, as I have no reason to think the 12 figure is incorrect. Different sources are going to differ on data. No opinion on this specific dispute tho. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually nvm, I am going to change it, because apparently the 12 is no longer verifiable. 11 killed on Friday, and 13 total, apparently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

Change "Israel launched airstrikes against Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings and a news office building."

To "Israel launched airstrikes against Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings and a news office building which in part were used by Hamas for militant purposes." Mdphddr (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

In the introduction, the article states "Israel launched airstrikes against Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings and a news office building.", which is partly misleading as it may suggest Israel is targeting randomly apartment or other buildings. Obviously this is not true compared to Palestinian militant groups randomly shooting rockets to Israeli territory to damage residential areas and civilians. The IDF targets only buildings used by Hamas or the Islamic Jihad for militant or terroristic purposes.

Sources don't seem to support ATM. WAPO attributes and says it's unproven for example. The stronger worded statement from AP: In a standard Israeli response, the military said that Hamas was operating inside the building, and it accused the militant group of using journalists as human shields. But it provided no evidence to back up the claims. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)